AMARJIT Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Challenge in the present Criminal Revision is to the order dtd. 6/6/2022 to the extent that the Special Judge Under NDPS Act, Fatehabad, in an application for bail under Sec. 36-A of the NDPS Act and Sec. 167(2) of Cr.P.C. had ordered the release of the petitioner on default bail "till receipt of FSL report" instead of allowing the said application.

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that in the present case, the petitioner was arrested on 5/2/2022 and the challan has been presented on 6/4/2022 and the said challan did not contain the FSL report. It is further submitted that since the alleged recovery effected in the present case is 30 grams 45 milligrams of heroin thus, challan was to be presented within a period of 60 days. It is contended that the challan was presented on 6/4/2022 without annexing the FSL report. It is further contended that application under Sec. 167(2) of Cr.P.C. read with Sec. 36-A of the NDPS Act was filed on 1/6/2022 and no application for extension of time to complete investigation was filed by the prosecution in terms of Sec. 36(4) of the NDPS Act. It is argued that the FSL report has not been submitted even till date.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon the Division Bench judgment of this Court in CRR No. 4659 of 2015 titled as "Ajit singh @ Jeeta and anoher Vs. State of Punjab" to contend that in such a situation the petitioner deserves the concession of default bail. It is also contended that in view of the conflict of opinion on the said point, the matter was referred to a Division Bench and has further relied upon a judgment dtd. 18/11/2020 passed in CRR No. 1135 of 2020 titled as "Suresh Vs. State of Haryana" in which a Coordinate Bench of this Court, after considering the entire aspect, was pleased to release the petitioner/accused therein on conditional bail with the clarification that in case the legal point is held against the petitioner/accused therein, the State would be at liberty to seek cancellation/ modification of the order, if warranted at that stage. It is contended that in the impugned order, the abovesaid important contentions have not been considered and has thus, prayed that the impugned order dtd. 24/5/2021 be set aside.